What is the attraction of alternate realities like Second life?

In the words of Godin Second life lets players “find their tribe”(TED2009 2009) be it vampires, sports fanatics or single people looking for dates, all kinds of groups exist in second life and players can communicate and form relationships within the virtual reality game. Unlike real life people in second life represent themselves through self-constructed avatars enabling then to project the image they wish people to see.

Second life has its own currency which can be exchanged for real money (Linden 2011) therefore people can get real paying jobs, buy clothes, houses, attend events, learn, invent, create etc through the virtual environment. Therefore it is possible to make money from second life to support your real life.

Therefore it could be said that alternate realities like second life allow people to transcend their physical location and embodiment and in order to live in an virtual world, although as Malpas points out this doesn’t “release from the limitations of embodiment” (Malpas 2009) in the real world. In order to contribute to this online society users still need to operate a form of ICT of some description, therefore second life doesn’t replace real life it just an alternative way for people to connect and to contribute to their tribe.

 Linden, R. 2011. How to sell Linden dollars. http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/How-to-sell-Linden-dollars/ta-p/1018151 (accessed 16/11/11).

Malpas, J. 2009. On the Non-Autonomy of the Virtual. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 15 (2): 135-139. http://con.sagepub.com (accessed

TED2009. 2009. Seth Godin on the tribes we lead. TED Ideas worth Spreading.

3.3: Are you worried about surveillance on or through Facebook? Why? Why not?

“Teens today grow up in a state of constant surveillance where there is no privacy. So they can’t really have an idea of it being lost. The risk of the government or a corporation coming in and looking at their MySpace site is beyond their consideration” (Westlake 2009 p. 32 quoting Berton 2006:A1).

My days of being a teenager are long gone, but I am also not worried about Facebook surveillance. I am aware that Facebook is in many ways a public place and, as with any public place, I understand that I do not have full control over what happens in it. I can only control what I submit to the site.

I could be filmed on CCTV when walking down the street, or be filmed on security cameras when entering a shop. I assume someone, somewhere is keeping a record of my credit card transactions, phone calls, TV shows I watch through pay TV,  tax returns, when I pay my rent, travel overseas, get a parking fine or visit the doctors. Be it they are different government departments and different businesses monitoring all these things that make up daily life but they are still monitored. Facebook to me just feels like an inevitable extension of this. I am not sure if its right, but it is reality.

 I am fine with Facebook collecting my data, as I am with other businesses and government departments doing the same thing, but in the same regard I don't want it used for immoral, unethical or illegal purposes. Facebook surveillance seems to me to be a big issue when put into the context of surveillance in every day life.

Westlake, E. J. 2008. Friend Me if You Facebook Generation Y and Performative Surveillance. Project Muse 52 (4): 21-40. https://auth.lis.curtin.edu.au/cgi-bin/auth-ng/walkin.cgi?url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/the_drama_review/v052/52.4.westlake.pdf (accessed 14/11/11).

ASSMT 1: 2.5 Notes on games, ARGs and digital commons

The topic of Alternate Reality Games (ARGs) was an interesting one this week that I think fits well with my remediation project and essay. Although I have chosen to remediate and write an essay about the sub plot of a television series - the way in which the characters story intertwines with real life scenarios is similar to the way in which ARGs are operate.

Örnebring states: "Alternate Reality Games (ARGs) are a form of internet-based mystery game in which participants are immersed in a fictional world and engage in collective problem-solving" (Örnebring 2007 p. 445).

And they work by:

  "Events and things mentioned in the episodes of the TV series itself will also provide clues. Bit by bit, these clues form a separate narrative set in the fictional world" (Örnebring 2007 p. 446).

In the TV show Gavin and Stacey - Nessa's back story is never fully told and she remains somewhat of a mystery. A series of clues are dropped by Nessa in her stories that reflect upon past conquests involving famous people from the real world. If viewers choose to investigate these clues they will find that these stories not only reference real life people but also real life scenarios that have been reported in the press. Nessa turns out to be someone that has escaped the limelight while being involved in a great deal of scandal.

Therefore the TV show follows a similar line to ARGs in that:

• A mystery is created
• Clues are given
• Clues can be investigated by audiences
• Clues link to real world people and scenarios through press reports

My remediation project sets out to join these clues together through a blog that presents Nessa as if she is a real life person and further the idea that the stories are true. Unlike a game there is no puzzle solving winning at the end, it is merely a site for investigating clues and filling in the back story - a kind of virtual reality blog based on a virtual reality storyline in a TV show.

In this regard my blog could be seen as an example cultural labor  described by Fiske and quoted by  Örnebring as " ‘filling in the syntagmatic gaps in the original narrative’ (Örnebring 2007 p. 451 quoting Fiske, 1992). In other words the blog pieces together a back story that enriches the characters in TV show. Örnebring believes that this type of culture labor supports marketing for television shows (as does other fan created content) - as it stays within the storyline and concept of the show rather than changing it, and disseminates to a wider audience

This same idea was covered in our second reading about Digital Commons - especially in the sections about mods which are fan produced modifications for games. The point was made here too that modders stick to the boundaries of the originating text source as per the following quote:

"most mods are thematically conservative, undertaken by technically accomplished fans who love a particular game and want more of it – more weapons and monstrous opponents for shooters, different campaigns and battles for war games – in variants that don’t stray far from the spirit of the original" (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007).

Both readings link fan culture, virtual reality and media institutions all of which relate to my remediation project. As the blog is aimed at fans and new watchers of the show Gavin and Stacey -  this topic would be good to cover in my essay.

Coleman, S., and N. Dyer-Witheford. 2007. Playing on the digital commons: collectivities, capital and contestation in videogame culture. Media Culture Society 29:  Sage publications. http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/934 (accessed 26/10/11).

Örnebring, H. 2007. Alternate reality gaming and convergence culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies 10: 445 - 462. Sage Publications. http://ics.sagepub.com/content/10/4/445 (accessed 20/10/11).

Do you mod? Why do modders mod?

Coleman & Dyer-Witheford describe modding as follows 

“modders aim to expand games: changing characters’ ‘skins’, adding weapons, creating scenarios, levels or missions, building new games out of old engine” (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007 p. 941)

I am not much of a gamer so modding is not something that I do or have encountered before although I can see its benefits.

For entertainment purposes alone being able to modify a game would make it a lot more enjoyable. When the game gets boring just adding an extension or accessing an extension someone else has created would allow continued and more interesting play.

I can also see this practice as being greatly beneficial the individual in terms of education.   By studying and experimenting with the original code, one could learn to create games through a process of self education. Overall, modding could create highly educated games developers who be seen as both a threat and an asset to gaming companies.

Coleman, S., and N. Dyer-Witheford. 2007. Playing on the digital commons: collectivities, capital and contestation in videogame culture. Media Culture Society 29:  Sage publications. http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/934 (accessed 26/10/11).

2.5 What are commons? In our current consumer/capitalist framework is it possible to even have commons in this context? Is the online environment a digital commons?

Coleman and Dyer-Witheford describe commons as:

“resources that all in a specified community may use, but none can own. They contrast with commodities, exchanged for profit on the basis of privatized possession.” (Coleman and Dyer-Witheford 2007)P934

In this context I believe that we do in some ways have commons in our current consumer/capitalist framework although they are more likely to be referred to as public areas and are not for the exclusive use of a “specified community”. We have parks, national parks, roads, and footpaths, crowned land, a water supply, libraries, and public beaches. Although it could be argued that governments own these resources – the governments are voted in by the general public who fund the upkeep of these resources through the paying of taxes. Therefore these resources could be said to be owned by all or none, depending on how you would like to look at it.

There are laws and regulations that govern our public resources or commons: such as speed limits on roads, fire safety guidelines in national parks, summer time water restrictions and laws that stop you staking out your own private little piece of Bondi Beach but they are put in place to preserve the commons, to ensure fairness, and to keep the general public safe when on common ground. Could we have common land without rules and regulations? I would have to say no. Our capitalist society works by one person taking ownership of a resource and trading for the resources of others. We do not live in a society where we only take what we need to survive; we take what we think we can profit most from. Therefore in this day and age our commons are legislated to prevent profit based on “privatized possession”.

Much like the offline world I believe the online environment is largely privatized but there are small chunks of it that could be thought of as commons. The world wide web is one example – this system of hyperlinks and urls enables us to make use of the internet and it is free – anyone can learn and use the code needed to make a website, but putting the website online is once again privatized through ISP’s charging for domain names. If anything Coleman and Dyer-Withefords article shows is that digital commons are not cut and dry. Companies own the intellectual properly rights to code, characters and the visual style of games. They may embrace the public playing on their turf or they may forbid people from using their code or characters to create new content entirely. In either case the companies still have IP rights over the content, and can choose to litigate at any time they see fit which sends mixed messages, blurring the line between commons and profitable privatization.

Coleman, S., and N. Dyer-Witheford. 2007. Playing on the digital commons: collectivities, capital and contestation in videogame culture. Media Culture Society 29:  Sage publications. http://mcs.sagepub.com/content/29/6/934 (accessed 26/10/11).

2.3 Activity 2: How can digital media offer disempowered communities control over their own images and stories? Provide some examples if you can.

Srinivasan’s article touches on the possibilities new media can bring to disempowered communities when the technology is appropriated to meet their own “cultural, political and social visions” (Srinivasan 2006 p. 497). He demonstrates the role social media can play in preserving “cultural histories”  through the sharing of “native languages, songs and rituals” (Srinivasan 2006 p. 507) through social media environment. His example Tribal PEACE is described as a bottoms-up project where members of 19 geographically dispersed Native American Reservations control the content submitted to an online space specifically designed for the purpose of teaching and preserving cultural heritage. The content submitted is chosen by a committee made up of reservation members and access to it controlled through a password protected website (Tribal PEACE an Inter-tribal Educational Initiative).

This example shows how new media can empower communities to keep their cultural identity alive through a controlled purpose built learning environment that operates outside that of educational institutions. It does not however mean that these cultural stories and images are in some way protected from use by others. The cultural stories of the Native Americans can still be told through movies – and altered and changed to suit the largest possible audience in a cross-cultural mingling that Jenkins refers to as “corporate hybridity”(Jenkins 2006 p.167). It does not stop stereotypical representations by other forms of media; it does however provide a space where members of disempowered communities can share cultural information without restriction or influence.

 Jenkins, H. 2006. Pop Cosmopolitanism: Mapping Cultural Flows in an Age of Media Convergence, Fans bloggers and gamers: exploring participatory culture: New York University Press.

Srinivasan, R. 2006. Indigenous, ethnic and cultural articulations of new media. International Journal of Cultural Studies 9: 497. http://ics.sagepub.com/content/9/4/497 (accessed 15/10/11).

  Tribal PEACE an Inter-tribal Educational Initiative. http://www.tribalpeace.org/ (accessed 17/10/11).

2.2 Notes: A fair(y) use tale

“A fair(y) use tale”:  where the rules of copyright are discussed through a mash up of Disney movies and an explanation of copyright issues spoken through their characters. This clever little film made some very clear points such as:

• Copyrighted materials can only be used by copyright owners
• It is illegal to use copyrighted material without permission from the owner
• You can pay for copyright permission (but it can be expensive)
• Books, plays, music, dance, movies, and pictures can be copyrighted
• You cannot copyright and idea, but the FORM the idea takes can be copyrighted (very important in terms of my remediation project)
• Copyright did only lasts for a fixed time of 14 years which was considered enough time for the owner to make money out of it.
• Now copyright lasts for the authors lifetime plus 70 years, preventing works from entering the public domain for free use by people in the same lifetime it was produced
• Fair use allows people to use small parts of copyrighted matierial for parody, critical comment, or education but validity depends on the nature of the work, the amount used, and commercial impact
• Fair use is not a right and is only a legal defense position (in the USA). The fact that it isn't a right allows large media companies to use intimidation to control their commodity.

(dangerousnerd 2007)

So it seems I caught the wrong end of the stick in my last post 2.2 Notes: Recovering fair use (Collins 2008). In it I ask why it is it is OK to quote parts the words or another author in your own writing, but it is illegal  to do this with other forms of media? (e.g. using a line of music from one song to create a new song). The film “A fair(y) use tale” proves that YOU CAN use snippets of other forms of media. ITS NOT ILLEGAL …. Well at least this particular work is not illegal – not today anyway – its murky water to say the least.

So how does it work?

 As dangerousnerd states -  copyright lasts well over 100 years - so the snippets of Disney films used to create A Fair(y) use tale would be well within the confines of copyright law.  This kind of film slips through the net by only using small parts of many different many films, the use of which does impact financially on the originating owner, and the film is for educational purposes - not only educating people through its commentary but also working as an example of what can legally be created out of someone else's content.

This film could also be said to fall under the title of "critical comment" - critiquing perhaps the impact  of  the Walt Disney Corporation on copyright legislation. Ellam's documentary RIP: A remix manifesto states that in 1998 the USA Government granted the Walt Disney Corporation copyright terms of "the life of the author plus 70 years" or plus 95 years if it was a corporation  (Ellam 2009). This precedent means that any media created now, will not enter the public domain and be free for use within our lifetimes. We cannot legally draw upon, extend, remix and remake using the influences of the modern day (unless of course we pay to do it).

A critical  point to make I think.

 dangerousnerd. 2007. A Fair(y) Use Tale. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UycH2HvBRd4 (accessed 28//9/11).

RIP: A Remix Manifesto (part 5). 2009. YouTube,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfSiQjFmcZw (accessed 6/10/11).

2.2 Notes: Recovering fair use (Collins 2008)

This article looks at how the  blending of “media consumption with media production to create new works” (Collins 2008) and  subsequent internet mediated distribution is challenging current copyright laws in the US. The article focuses on “Fair Use”  - a doctrine that is part of the United States Copyright Act 1976 which allows for a certain amount of flexibility when using copyrighted material if it is deemed “fair”. This doctrine, Collins states, is being “systematically eroded” by harshly enforced copyright legislation -  and is something that Collins would like to see re-instated to ensure our cultural and creative expression is not stifled.

Collins begins by pointing out that copyright and distribution of text have always walked hand in hand - with the originating law being granted in order to allow for the exchange of money in return for access and use of texts. It was created in the interest of society, in the interest of learning and education, and to promote creativity and new thought by exposing people to new ideas through books (Collins 2008). 

The system of using another's work without permission but ensuring the originating source is always quoted or cited is a system still used today in writing, and I tend to wonder why it has not evolved to include other forms of media. Should I choose to write a book and publish a string words written by another author I can do so as long as its referenced. Should I choose to make song, and use a line of melody from another song it is illegal. As an example - take a look at the band Men at Work - sued for using a line of melody from "kookaburra sits in the old gum tree". I wonder if they sang the reference would they have avoided a court case? I also wonder is free speech limited now only to the written word? 

.... Hang on I haven't reference the title of that bird song! I'm probably looking down the barrel of a law suit right now. Here I am ... playing with fire - much like that other, less fortunate Kookaburra....

The article goes on to give two examples of when "fair use" has been successfully used to defend  people in court who have used songs without the copyright owners permission. One  - where a mother posted a video on YouTube of her baby dancing to a song by Prince, and the other where 15 seconds of a John Lennon song was used in a documentary. While both cases were acquitted I tend to wonder if fair use is the way forward - as it is a court appointed process that relies on the everyday person fighting against large media institutions who have greater financial resources, and therefore greater power in the courtroom. Court cases cost money, and the average person may find it easier to take down their content rather than trying to fight for their right to display it. The playing field here is not level, despite the laws created to make it so.

Australian copyright law does not contain a fair use clause but does have “fair dealing” exceptions which allow copyrighted material to be used for “research or study, criticism or review, parody or satire, reporting news, or professional advice by a lawyer, patent attorney or trade marks attorney”(Fair Dealing  2008). Yet even if a work is used for educational purposes it is still up to the courts to decide if the use was fair and it is this that worries me. What constitutes as a fair learning experience? Will work created in an effort to self educate be seen as any more or less fair than works created when attending an established education institution? Is one form of learning more legal than the other?

The idea of fair use and copyright may be a good thing to base my remediation project on as I am not sure that copyright law works in the best interest of the everyday person. If anything it seems copyright has the ability to make criminals out of just about everybody. Kookaburras included.

Collins, S. 2008. Recovering Fair Use. M/C Journal 11 (6). http://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_43148_1%26url%3d (accessed 28/9/11).

Fair Dealing. 2008. Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G079v05: 6. http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/ (accessed 28/9/11).

2.2 Overview

The theme for this weeks topic is

"Don't touch that! Copyright, ownership and institutional control"

The main objectives are:

• To discover the limitations of user-production
• To get a better understanding of copyright and ownership in the new media environment
• To get to grips with the idea of Creative Commons licencing

2.1 Notes of Vidding

Vidding | Organization for Transformative Works

Click on this link and you will find a series of short films about vidding. Although the term is new to me - after watching a few of the films I realized that I have seen a great many "vids" on YouTube.

So what is vidding?

Well you know that part at the end of every chick-flick you have ever seen - where one lover dies and they cut to a montage depicting all fun the couple had together - the highs, the lows, the good times and the bad... all set to music designed to make you ball your eyes out and reach for the ice cream? Well I guess this could be described as the forefather of vidding.

A "vid" is short film created by fans that uses both the footage and the techniques of film and TV production companies to create their own montages based on the characters and events of their favorite media text. Just like movie montages they are set to music and good ones usually follow a theme that is based on the fans favorite TV shows or movies. Fans can use vids to create new narrative or to support the narrative of an existing storyline and create vids out of love for the characters, the plot or both. Or as one vidder puts it:  “it’s the three minutes I want to see set to really good music”  (Coppa 2008).

As Jenkins states in his blog - Vidding is not something that is all that new, having been around for the past 20 years  (Jenkins 2008) but as the technology to create and distribute vids has become more accessible, vidding has risen in popularity. Jenkins also states that although there are a great many vids out there in cyberspace many people are reluctant to claim ownership due to the possible consequences of infringing copyright (Jenkins 2008).

Having only really seen vids based on sci-fi shows I cant say I ever really liked them - but in the name of higher education I set out to find one based on my favorite media text Gavin and Stacey.

The below vid created by cyberwoman007 takes clips from various episodes of the TV show Gavin and Stacey and sets them Taylor Swifts Love Song. The result is a polished, professional film clip that tells love story of the two main characters that makes me think that maybe Ive been a little harsh on vidding. It seems that like with most fan based artwork you need to actually be a fan to get a full appreciation for it.

Now... wheres that ice cream?

cyberwoman007. 2010. Gavin & Stacey Love Story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liJk5NPWlxU (accessed 5/10/11). 

Jenkins, H. 2008. Fan Vidding: A Labor Of Love (Part Two). http://henryjenkins.org/2008/12/in_many_ways_the_emergence.html (accessed 14/9/11).

What is Vidding. 2008. Transformativeworks.org,  http://transformativeworks.org/node/579 (accessed 14/9/11).